Caitlin Ahearn v. Hyundai Motor America
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentNguyen, Circuit Judge
“Economic reality dictates” that this consumer lawsuit “proceed as a class action or not at all.”’ Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 161, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974). By championing the cause of a handful of objectors and their attorneys (who were denied fees below) to decertify the class, the majority deprives thousands of consumers of any chance to recover what is, conservatively speaking, a more than $159 million settlement.1 In doing so, the majority relies on arguments never raised by the objectors, contravenes precedent, and disregards reasonable factual findings…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. BouaphakeoSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- Blackie v. BarrackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.